Farmer A sued to prevent Farmer B from suing if Farmer A accidentally ended up with some orange tomatoes even though Farmer B has stated they would not do so? And the court ruled that Farmer B should not be restricted from their day in court if they wanted it?

If Monsanto had sued to prevent other farmers from suing Monsanto for inadvertent seeding. most of you would be siding with the legal minds in this thread and applauding this ruling.

Hey - let me axe you something you probably don't know the answer to. How much of the DNA of a Monsanto strain is patented? In other words, if a neighboring farmer's corn mutates by just one nucleotide, wouldn't that be a new strain independent of Monsanto's patented variety?

Farmer A sued to prevent Farmer B from suing if Farmer A accidentally ended up with some orange tomatoes even though Farmer B has stated they would not do so? And the court ruled that Farmer B should not be restricted from their day in court if they wanted it?

If Monsanto had sued to prevent other farmers from suing Monsanto for inadvertent seeding. most of you would be siding with the legal minds in this thread and applauding this ruling.

Pretty much. I agree with the ruling but it's more like farmer b has been filing lawsuits all over the place which cost million to fight. The farmers trade group is getting tons of calls from their members asking for help. So they file an action against farmer b saying to cut that shiat out. While farmer b is being a huge dick, what the trade group is asking is legally unreasonable.

1. The farmers were suing to make it illegal for Monsanto to ever sue if they find Monsanto's patented genes in their crop.

2. The judge says no, because: a. The judge says Monsanto has already made a legally binding promise not to sue over incidental contamination from cross pollination from normal cross pollination. b. Monsanto wants to reserve the right to sue for flagrant violations of the violation of their patent.3. Judge says you can't sue someone to bar them from theoretically suing you in the future. The courts don't work that way. (The judge didn't say this, but if you want protection from lawsuits you need legislative protection.)

Hey - let me axe you something you probably don't know the answer to. How much of the DNA of a Monsanto strain is patented? In other words, if a neighboring farmer's corn mutates by just one nucleotide, wouldn't that be a new strain independent of Monsanto's patented variety?

That's the other interesting problem here. If you consider anything derived from their original strain to be theirs, we will hit a point where every version of some crops has to be licensed to them

NickelP:Isn't that just a really biased way of saying they have won every case where at least on percent of their seed was found? I don't think that is surprising. It is the point of the lawsuit.

No it isn't. In every case where someone had more than a trace amount there was substantial evidence or an admission that the person purposely acquired Roundup seeds in order to have a crop that was Roundup ready. If we are going to question whether or not a jury of 12 people in a civil suit is capable of evaluating evidence, then we're going down the wrong path I think.

There hasn't been anyone that has been sued by Monsato that claims they were victims of the wind. That's why there were only folks suing that were preemptively trying to get immunity from lawsuits. Had they actually been sued, then they would have had standing and the courts would have let their lawsuit proceed. Since they weren't sued, they had no standing.

NickelP:Pretty much. I agree with the ruling but it's more like farmer b has been filing lawsuits all over the place which cost million to fight. The farmers trade group is getting tons of calls from their members asking for help. So they file an action against farmer b saying to cut that shiat out. While farmer b is being a huge dick, what the trade group is asking is legally unreasonable.

Except even the factual grounds of the suit are somewhat different. Monsanto was able to show it has not sought enforcement for inadvertent infringement and has agreed that it will not.

As far as i know the only case where such claims were in play was a suit in Canada, which was resolved as Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902. The rick of that opinion is that all claims against the defendant regarding inadvertent infringement had been dropped and all that was left were claims for willful infringement (the farmer was growing a crop of 95-98% pure Roundup Ready plants, far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence).

While Monsanto is a litigious fark of a company, they tend to hammer farmers who actually are using seeds from year to year in violation of their agreements. I don't know of any instances where they have brought a wind dispersal claim in the last 10 years.*

/*would be exceedingly happy to be proved wrong mind you - just don't know of anything other than "but of course they are doing it!" claims

simkatu:NickelP: Isn't that just a really biased way of saying they have won every case where at least on percent of their seed was found? I don't think that is surprising. It is the point of the lawsuit.

No it isn't. In every case where someone had more than a trace amount there was substantial evidence or an admission that the person purposely acquired Roundup seeds in order to have a crop that was Roundup ready. If we are going to question whether or not a jury of 12 people in a civil suit is capable of evaluating evidence, then we're going down the wrong path I think.

There hasn't been anyone that has been sued by Monsato that claims they were victims of the wind. That's why there were only folks suing that were preemptively trying to get immunity from lawsuits. Had they actually been sued, then they would have had standing and the courts would have let their lawsuit proceed. Since they weren't sued, they had no standing.

Scroll up for the damning link on how these lawsuits ar bs. The one guy used roundup on a small part of his field to see how contaminated it was.

I said they had no standing. I have no idea why you are arguing that point.

From what I read in the article, it seems Monsanto doesn't want the option to sue to be taken away from them in case these farmers used their product without paying for it. It doesn't seem that Monsanto is bad at all. It is of my opinion that they are just protecting their interest.

If there had even once been a situation where Monsanto sued someone who hadn't intentionally screened out the patented seed that "accidentally" grew on their land and replanted that, I might be bothered.

Shadi:The judge is ruling that the farmers cannot sue to prevent Monsanto from suing. The farmers were preemptively suing even though Monsanto has stated that it has not sued anyone nor any interest in suing.

As much as I don't like Monsanto, the ruling makes complete sense to me.

Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

FYI - I met this amazing man one morning..I was going to a company meeting and across the street was the CBC building...I went to the cafeteria to get a bagel, turned around and there he was! I said "Good Morning Dr. Suzuki". He said good morning to me...

I've kept up with most stories associated with agribusiness for a long time.

Monsanto is one of the most evil companies on the planet.

I don't know what has to happen to get more publicity on what is going on with our food system. We have fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of our supply and their goals generally have profit above safety or fairness. Do we wait until every plant on the planet is patented? I think Monsanto would love to spread their GMOs to the point they can sue you for the crabgrass in your yards.

I'm curious about your initial qualifying statement. You say you've kept up with most stories associated with the agribusiness, but you don't supply sources. One could easily state something similar about Whale Conservation, but get most of their stories from Greenpeace and SSCS-related media outlets.

Those who are serious on this discussion...please watch this an give your opinion... Ya I posted it already, but I was typing and not really listening..then I replayed it...and I think this gives a great answer to WHY gmo's are not in our best interest....

Kahabut:Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

So, if the wind were to cause Monsanto seeds to accidentally contaminate topsoil on every property in the U.S., could Monsanto be taken back to court for failure to enforce its patents under the "all-or-nothing" provisions of the current intellectual property laws?

meow said the dog:It is not something which I have the familiarity but sometimes I do the wearing of the boy briefs because they have the comfort so perhaps for the boy this is also the thing which provides to he the comfort. Was this the boyshorts or the thong of the underwear? I am not someone who has the assureness of this but would wish for learning of so.

MSTD, the atomic wedgie thread was last week. I think you just coredumped in this thread.

dinch:meow said the dog: It is not something which I have the familiarity but sometimes I do the wearing of the boy briefs because they have the comfort so perhaps for the boy this is also the thing which provides to he the comfort. Was this the boyshorts or the thong of the underwear? I am not someone who has the assureness of this but would wish for learning of so.

[www.foxers.com image 700x700]

I have always admired MSTD for that quirky sense of....English language, but I didn't realize she had such a fine...pair of shorts.

Shadi:Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point. Seed purchased is seed owned. Screw licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR. It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

Kahabut:Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point. Seed purchased is seed owned. Screw licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR. It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

It hasn't been that way for a long long long time.

You're going to fight 100+ years of precedent on seed propagation and selling. It isn't exactly something new that came along with Monsanto.

Kahabut:Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point. Seed purchased is seed owned. Screw licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR. It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

"In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers' argued, that contamination from Monsanto's products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company's genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

/eyetwitch

Next year "Monsanto has decided to sue a local farmer due to,,,"

If it becomes profitable to sue a company will do so, and without the chance to quickly determine whose property in this case is what, "the big guy will always win on precedent"

sprgrss:Kahabut: Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point. Seed purchased is seed owned. Screw licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR. It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

I also take it that you don't believe in leases either.

So you're taking the moron route. Interesting.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog. But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog. But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.

I want you to distinguish leases from licensing rights.

Show me the "lease" that Monsanto uses. For that matter, show me where licensing rights have any jurisdiction over physical objects sold to a third party. (hint, software is not a physical object, and is never technically sold, only access to the software is sold)